Help with Logical Fallacies

[McCragge]

Hey guys, I am still trying to hone my skills at the art of argument. But of course I am finding that it can be a lot more difficult then it looks. (at least for me) So I thought I would post an example or two and maybe you could help point out the fallacies (if there are any) and why they are fallacies.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

If God exists, which he must indeed if God hates amputees, and it is said that God created all things, therefore God created all things if he exists.

Jack can't hate Jill if Jack doesn't exist.

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Thanks in advance.

McCragge

 

[athon]

I use the site http://logicalfallacies.info/ for my students. It's fairly clear and well organised.

Of course spotting them in a discussion can be tricky, and often it's not until you've had some practice do they jump out easily.

Good luck.

Athon

 

[quixotecoyote]

If God exists, which he must indeed if God hates amputees, and it is said that God created all things, therefore God created all things if he exists.

This is phrased incorrectly. The first bit, "If God exists," doesn't have a then statement attached to it. It also seems like two propositions. Allow me to turn your statement (with its assumptions) into syllogisms.

A1. Anything that hates must exist.
A2. God hates amputees
A3. Therefore God exists

B1. Saying an entity created all things means that entity has created all
things.
B2. It is said that God created all things.
B3. Therefore God has created all things.

The logic is not fallacious. A2 and B1 are simply unsupported assertions. Originally it would have suffered from unstated assumptions as well.

 

[Lonewulf]

B1. Saying an entity created all things means that entity has created all
things.
B2. It is said that God created all things.
B3. Therefore God has created all things.

The logic is not fallacious.

Wait wait wait wait.

Wait.

Just... wait.

Wait.

*mind breaks*

Okay, there we go.

How is saying "someone says something happened, therefore it happened" logical? If I say I turned into superman and beat up Dustin Kusselberg with a giant trout, that doesn't mean the event actually happened.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Wait wait wait wait.

Wait.

Just... wait.

Wait.

*mind breaks*

Okay, there we go.

How is saying "someone says something happened, therefore it happened" logical? If I say I turned into superman and beat up Dustin Kusselberg with a giant trout, that doesn't mean the event actually happened.

Philosophically, logic is distinct from fact and truth.

As I noted, "Saying an entity created all things means that entity has created all things," is an unsupported assertion. In fact it is false.

However, since it was used as a major premise, the only logical issue is whether the conclusion can follow from the major premise and the minor premise, which it can.

In fact, most of the fallacies you're probably familiar with work like this. You can take any ad hominem, ad populum or ad agnorantiam and squeeze it into a functioning syllogism. That is why they're called informal logical fallacies.

Of course, I could be wrong as formal logic is not my specialty.

 

[rjh01]

See also http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Logic_and_Logical_Fallacies(index)

 

[McCragge]

Those two sites are great. I am reading them now, flipping back and forth.

But I don't think I understand, neither of the statements below are fallacious?

If God exists, which he must indeed if God hates amputees, and it is said that God created all things, therefore God created all things if he exists.

Jack can't hate Jill if Jack doesn't exist.

They are just worded incorrectly?

It just seems to me there must be a fallacy in here somewhere because what does god existing and hating amputees have to do with god creating anything.

McCragge

 

[quixotecoyote]

Could you reread my post to Lonewulf? I tried to explain it as best I could, so if there's a portion of my last response you didn't understand I'll know what I need to change.

 

[McCragge]

Could you reread my post to Lonewulf? I tried to explain it as best I could, so if there's a portion of my last response you didn't understand I'll know what I need to change.

Right, but you rewrote the statement into two seperate statements. Which by themselves seem logical I suppose. But together or combined they make no sense.

It seems to me that it would be set out like this

A1 If god exists he hates amputees
A2 God Created all things
A3 Therefore god exists and created all things.

(maybe the jack and jill statement is true) But to me this just doesn't make any sense. Why is the amputees comment even included and what does it have to do with the conclusion. And can we even arrive at the conclusion with the first statement?

Thank you for everyones patience, I am just trying to wrap my head around these logical fallacies and how to argue/debate more intelligently.

McCragge

 

[quixotecoyote]

Right, but you rewrote the statement into two seperate statements. Which by themselves seem logical I suppose. But together or combined they make no sense.

Right, on their own they were missing assumptions and not particularly well ordered.

(maybe the jack and jill statement is true)

Not true, logical. etawell, probably true too, but that's not the point)

A proposition being logical has no impact on it's truth.

Watch.

1. Bunnies are fuzzy.
2. Charlie Daniels knows jack about evolution.
3. Therefore the sun appears to rise in the east.

This is a complete non-sequitor even though all premises and the conclusion are true. It is illogical but true.

On the other hand.

1.All fuzzy animals are bunnies
2.McCragge is a fuzzy animal
3.Therefore McCragge is a bunny.

Is logical but false. The logic is correct, but the underlying facts are not.

But to me this just doesn't make any sense. Why is the amputees comment even included and what does it have to do with the conclusion. And can we even arrive at the conclusion with the first statement?

The amputee's statement was included because my skills at formal logic do not extend far beyond basic concepts and the simple syllogism:
1.Major premise
2.Minor premise
3.Conclusion

So I cheated and filled in one of the assumptions behind your argument. If I was to ignore your parenthetical my analysis would look more like:

First a rephrase keeping all content but the parenthetical

If god exists and it is said that he created all things then if god exists he created all things.

1. if god exists
2. if it is said god created all things
3. if god exists he created all things

3 doesn't logically follow from this formulation at all. It is missing steps that can form a logical statement. In other words, it's not a logical argument.

However, on hearing this your audience will automatically fill in the missing part of the argument. There's a greek word for this which I should know because it's foundational to rhetoric, but it eludes me tonight.

When you say that argument to someone (minus the parenthetical), they will probably hear:

Major premise 1. If people say things, those things are true.
Major premise 2. Gods must exist to create all things.
Minor Premise 1. People say God exists
Minor premise 2. People say God has created all things
Conclusion:Therefore God exists and has created all things


Major premise two is not really necessary for this, but I included it for completeness.

People won't agree with this, but when they try to parse your statement, this is the logic pattern to find.

Thank you for everyones patience, I am just trying to wrap my head around these logical fallacies and how to argue/debate more intelligently.
McCragge

A worthy goal!

 

[McCragge]

Just to clarify, the arguments/statements I have posted as examples are not my actual statements. They were said to me in a recent argument I had and it just rang untrue or fallacious.

So basically, if I remove the amputees statement, it is not a logical statement, but because the audience is assumed to insert the implied missing bits it then is a logical statement? What if we re-insert the amputees statement is it still a logical statement?

McCragge

 

[quixotecoyote]

sorry missed this:

It seems to me that it would be set out like this

A1 If god exists he hates amputees
A2 God Created all things
A3 Therefore god exists and created all things.

Your parenthetical is a separate argument about the existence of god and needs it's own formulation. The amputee comment is unrelated from the creation argument. Further, your minor premise (A2) should be a specific example of a universal declared in your major premise (A1).



If you forced my to translate the entire sentence into one argument it would look like this:

Major premise A1: Anything that hates amputees exists
Major premise A2: If people say something, it is true but only if it exists (I should be declaring some sort of conditional here, I think)
Minor premise B1: God hates amputees.
Minor premise B2: People say God created all things.
Conclusion C1 as per A1 and B1: God exists
Conclusion C2 as per A2, B2, and C1: God created all things.

My notation is horrible and I don't think that as you wrote the sentence, the bit about amputees was part of the argument, but this is a logical but false argument.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If God exists, which he must indeed if God hates amputees, and it is said that God created all things, therefore God created all things if he exists.

Not every bad argument has a catchy name. This, for example, is just a weird argument, or rather two weird arguments. Let's break it down a bit by highlighting the qualifiers and the conclusion of the main argument:

IF (god exists) AND (it is said God created all things) THEN (God created all things) IF (he exists)

The last IF clause is redundant so we can drop it. That leaves:

IF (god exists) AND (it is said God created all things) THEN (God created all things)

Which is true, if God has the qualities God is said to have. It is not necessarily true otherwise. This argument is not fallacious, except in that it does not make the premise about God having the qualities God is said to have explicit. it just doesn't prove anything interesting.

The second argument is:

IF (God hates amputees) THEN (God exists).

This is trivially true. Nonexistant things cannot hate other things. This argument too is not fallacious and does not prove anything interesting.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Just to clarify, the arguments/statements I have posted as examples are not my actual statements. They were said to me in a recent argument I had and it just rang untrue or fallacious.

You seemed too intelligent to be saying those things yourself.

So basically, if I remove the amputees statement, it is not a logical statement, but because the audience is assumed to insert the implied missing bits it then is a logical statement?

Well it will function as an logical statement. As written it is a non-sequitor, but in many (most?) arguments made outside of formal logic you expect your audience to do some of the work for you. I'm waffling. Logical simply means.... Well ok, I'm too inarticulate tonight.

Here: http://www.galilean-library.org/int4.html

This is less about lists of fallacies and more about an introduction to logic theory. Once you understand that, you'll know everything I know.

What if we re-insert the amputees statement is it still a logical statement?
McCragge

I think my post above explains what the deal on the amputee bit is. If it doesn't post again.

 

[quixotecoyote]

IF (god exists) AND (it is said God created all things) THEN (God created all things)

Which is true, if God has the qualities God is said to have. It is not necessarily true otherwise. This argument is not fallacious, except in that it does not make the premise about God having the qualities God is said to have explicit. it just doesn't prove anything interesting.

You have to make the bold section explicitly within the argument. Otherwise it is fallacious AND false rather than merely false.

 

[McCragge]

You seemed too intelligent to be saying those things yourself.

Phew, thank you. I was hoping people wouldn't think I wrote that.

Thanks for all the help. I think I am starting to get the hang of this a bit. Once I get done with the website posted above, I will start reading the website you posted as well.

McCragge

 

[NeilC]

This is quite good: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

 

[McCragge]

Does this argument hold water?

P1: If you believe in God you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer
P2: if prayed for nothing will be impossible to you
C1: Amputees will get limbs back if they pray and believe in god

McCragge

 

[NeilC]

I don't see the point in P2.

If you believe in god and therefore will receive what you pray for then of course you will get your limbs back if you pray. IF you assume god exists and if you assume that praying works.

I would have thought that the logic is sound but the argument is not since it makes unfounded assumptions.

 

[quixotecoyote]

P2 is redundant and can be removed, but yes, this would function as valid but unsound (or logical but untrue, if you prefer);